#but that also doesn't mean that any of these characters should forgive her either

[sukibenders]

When it comes to Penelope I feel like a lot of her fans take any valid criticism towards her and turn it into hate, which does her character a disservice. While some people do hate on her, a lot of it holds valid reasons. Admitting that she has hurt many people isn't wrong because she has, it's been shown on throughout the show and the impacts it can have. From labeling Daphne as "unmarriageable" during her first season and events that followed, her labeling Eloise as being part of a group of rebels, the terms she used to describe Kate [and Simon]-- which carried racial undertones no matter how you try to spin it, who didn't even know personally at that point, what she did Marina. All of these were very harmful and to say that none of these characters should feel angry, that they should just forgive Penelope without any work put into it is very laughable (especially because she's still writing as Whistledown and put many, namely women, at risk during a time where reputation is everything--something in which Penelope herself faces). With this being said, criticizing her actions, at least for me, doesn't come from a complete place of hate but more so from believing that she can be better if she puts in the work. By ignoring all that she's done and having her get her happily ever after so easily in the end, to be honest, would ultimately feel lackluster. I feel like she still has room to grow, but it will take a lot of work and, I personally, think seeing her renavigate who she is with who she wants to be outside of Lady Whistledown would be very interesting.

[peekofhistory]

What dynasty are wuxia hanfu based off? The ones in The Untamed and Word Of Honor look cool but I can't tell which dynasty they're based off

It depends on the story/show :D

Wuxia shows can be from any dynasty, or even no dynasty at all. There's a Chinese term called "架空" （jiakong), essentially it means the story takes place in a fictional time period that doesn't actually exist in history. Stories that are "jiakong" have a lot of leeway when it comes to clothing, hair, settings, etc. because the writer/director can essentially do whatever they want.

Xianxia stories (like The Untamed) tend to be "jiakong" because immortals don't actually exist. To put Xianxia stories into actual history, the writer would have to make a lot of changes to what actually happened in history, which can get messy, so most writers choose to "jiakong" the time period just to make things easier.

Wuxia stories (like Word of Honor) can be "jiakong" or set in a particular dynasty. In the case of Word of Honor, it's "jiakong".

Because of that, the Hanfu designs for both shows are a mixed batch. I don't think the costume designers had any dynasty in mind when designing these clothes and instead just went with a basic "look" of Hanfu (long sleeves, long robes) and worked from there.

(If I get any of the characters' names wrong, please forgive me, it's been a while since I saw these shows OTL)

For example, in the pic below this style of flipped out collar worn by A-Xu doesn't fit with any Hanfu styles I'm aware of. The only flipped-out collar I know of is sometimes when wearing quju robes (pic 2,3) of the Qin/Han Dynasties, and he's definitely not wearing a quju.

��EDIT】 The collar of Tang Dynasty robes could be worn flipped outwards to reveal the semi-sleeve inside, but that's not the style A-Xu is wearing here.

Also the long slits in the bottom of the robes they're wearing, some Hanfu styles from the Tang Dynasty and onward do have slits but they were one on either side, and possibly one at the back, more commonly seen with round-collared robes (though not always).

Here Wen Kexing has on a quling (turtle-neck collared) undershirt which is seen in Han/Weijin Dynasties, but then the white robe has a flipped out collar. A-Xu's entire outfit is...lol, I think he's purposely wearing his collar loose like that to portray that he didn't really care about his appearance but technically no collar should be so low as that light-blue robe he's wearing. I don't think that robe actually has a defined collar, the fabric is just loosely gathered but there's no collar "cuff".

In this pic, Wen Kexing has a round collared robe which is seen in Tang, Song, Ming, but then the sleeve is like a half-shoulder vest rather than full sleeve, and that's also not seen in any Hanfu styles.

...Or is that one robe? Is the sleeve connected to that shoulder piece? Because it looks like the robe he has underneath is red (from the collar). I can't tell, but either way, that shoulder design is not a style found in any Hanfu of a particular dynasty.

This couple's wedding outfit is influenced by a mix of Song and Ming Dynasty. She's wearing green, usually seen in Song Dynasty, but her collar is a criss-crossed collar which would be Ming (Song would be like pic 3 where the woman is wearing a low-collared top rather than a high-collared robe). She's missing the "xiapei (霞帔)" which is that strip of fabric draped on the shoulders (pic 4), but it looks like the costume designer put a strip of red along the collar to give an illusion of wearing xiapei.

For the groom, rather than the official round-collar robe he's wearing a cross-collared robe, and his red is more of a blue-ish tint. Usually wedding robes, if red, are a bright red (literally called "China red" in China, xDD).

For this pic below, it's a 1-piece robe with collar piece going across the chest, then straight down from the waist. It could be a Tang or Song style Hanfu, but the sleeves, the belt, and the overall fit of the clothing isn't quite right.

The Untamed made a lot of their clothes really form-fitting against the actors, that's actually not a good fit for Hanfu in general. You want a nice loose fit, even if the clothing is "form-fitting" it's not meant to stick to your frame. Because of this, the clothing in the Untamed always appear a size or two too small (Word of Honor did a better job of sizing their clothes). If they were wearing today's clothing then it's no problem, but for Hanfu it's too tight >_< Then again, that's probably just the style they were going for so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This black jacket/vest definitely was just created for a "cool" aesthetic. Xianxia/Wuxia shows love doing this broad shoulder vest garment, in actual Hanfu there ARE garments that look similar but these shows really run with it.

Here, Jinguang Yao (it's Yao, right?) is wearing a round-collared robe which was popular in Tang, Song, and Ming. The outer jacket and the material (it looks like brocade rather than soft silk) makes me lean towards Ming Dynasty for this outfit.

It also has an emblem piece on the chest which makes me think of the Mandarin Square robe during the Ming Dynasty (work attire for court officials) except: 1) Mandarin squares are embroidered separately then sewn onto the robe, this looks like it was weaved into the fabric 2) Mandarin Square robes in Ming Dynast were red 3) This emblem is round instead of square

So I would say they took inspiration from the Mandarin Square robe but changed aspects to make it fit into the show better (I think the show kept most characters in lighter colours to contrast with Wei Wuxian's darker, bold colours).

There's also things like the buildings, props, etc. to consider if we were to really dig into dynasties. And the hair styles, that half-up half-down thing is purely for aesthetics because in history they wouldn't wear their hair like that (especially considering their background).

There was a short period during the Jin/North-South dynasty when some men did wear half their hair down, but that was ONLY because that period of time was notoriously chaotic and the "rules" specifying appropriate behaviour in society had crashed (礼崩乐坏). Essentially, if you were a "civil" man (particularly with some education from a wealthy family) all your hair is tied up at 15 yo, and at 20 you get your guan (hair piece) ceremony symbolizing you're now an adult.

For women, pre-marriage you can leave some hair down, but tied in the back, not loose. After marriage it all gets tied up.

Leaving hair loose would basically get you labeled as rude, disrespectful, uncouth, uneducated, crazy, you get the idea.

But in shows like this it's a nice aesthetic when they're doing martial arts moves and the hair is flying around, so these days it tends to be the go-to hairstyle for xianxia/wuxia shows.

I hope that was helpful :D None of this is to say these costumes aren't beautiful, just not history textbook Hanfu ^^;;;;

[tumblingxelian]

If I may ask with an open enough mind, might I hear out your thoughts on the character of Chloe Bourgeois? I don't expect an answer right out the gate so don't rush on my account. I'm merely trying to collect varying perspectives over what's become a uniquely controversial character.

Oh my that is a doozy of a question, I've debated no less than three separate videos on the topic and multiple essays to boot. Still, she's on my mind and the thing I am working on is obstructing me from modelling or writing but quires breaks to let stuff load so I have time for a longer ask:

So, what are my thoughts on Chloe Bourgeois?

Exactly where to start is rather tricky, so forgive any digressions or rambles.

Chloe is thematically the everyday reality of an Akumatized person.

What I mean by this is that Akuma victims are people in states of emotional distress, tribulation or trouble. Who thanks to the enabling of a power greater than themselves are both encouraged and enabled to lash out at others with borrowed power.

These people are meant to be sympathetic, their emotional tribulation taken advantage of, their situation, methods and thought process untenable. But they do need to be stopped from doing harm, and then healing needs to begin, with some effort made to redress the issue that led to them lashing out in the first place.

Akuma victims are the supernatural theme, Chloe is the reality.

Of course, some might claim she has no reason to have issues but...

Her mother is negligent and largely absent. The time they spent together prior to Queen Wasp, consisted of Chloe praising, giving gifts and trying to please Audrey. Only to be torn down, ignored, rejected or have her efforts disparaged. The woman doesn't even get her name right and the only means by which she earned even a scrap of approval was through being cruel. Something explicitly encouraged by the show's main character which is ???. 

Though it seems Audrey got bored with her fairly quickly regardless.

Audrey is unrelentingly hostile, selfish and cruel and encourages these traits in others and only avoids turning them on a person if they are sufficiently useful, or a match for her in viciousness. You are either her victim, her tool, or a conspirator. This is a hilariously awful parent, the damage she can do limited only by her sheer lack of interest.

Andre is somehow worse.

I am going to ignore the reading undertones of subtext into things but suffice to say that ratchets him up from just a bad parent to kill him with fire parent.

What we see with Andre is a man who explicitly taught Chloe to lie, cheat, intimidate, extort and bribe people to get what she wants. She is fourteen, and has been doing this since before she was in double digits. She's not bad because there's something innately wrong with her, she behaves badly because she's been explicitly taught that was the proper way to conduct herself.

We know full well Andre is capable of reigning Chloe in, be it gently in the Christa episode or with disciplinary action in Kung Food. However he only does this when it suits him, or her actions might cause him problems. For all his alleged affection for her, or her alleged influence on him, Chloe's always on the end of a leash Andre can and will tug back on the moment he feels like it.

This isn't just bad because it's so blatantly hypocritical and self serving. It's bad, because it means he enables Chloe's most self destructive and harmful traits so long as they don't impact 'him'. Given also that he is the one who, to put it charitably, raised her, that means the consequences and fallout of her actions should fall on him.

The fact he is presumably the one who encouraged Chloe to impersonate his wife, given Audrey didn't start rewarding that behavior until Queen Wasp, is also bad parenting. Like even if you ignore the disgust factor, its just fucking awful parenting and like everything else he taught her. It contributed to the fact Chloe is a social pariah hated by most people she has to spend time around.

Because let's get to the next stage, subversions!

In most shows like ML, Chloe as "The mean girl" would be popular, or at least feared, able to pose a threat in a social context, and is usually insulated from the more magical issues.

None of this applies to Chloe.

Even if we don't treat Origins as the shows starting point, she's already only tangentially involved in class stuff. Her fathers hotels own doorman outright says she has no friends, extremely out of pocket of him. & Origins sees one of the first things said to him being that Chloe is a brat and he halfway ditches her before 24 hours are up, and keeps her at nominal arms length for the rest of the series.

We can talk about how there's reasons for this, sure, but the thing that's interesting here is the subversion.

Chloe's mean-ness has not won her friends or influence as it does other mean girls in fiction, such as Heathers or Mean Girls.

Instead, it's made her barely tolerated by her peers and this only grows worse for her as the show goes on leading to her ensuing isolation which only worsens her condition and attitude. This is something Chloe is even varying shades of aware of, as she tearfully confessed to Ladybug when hiding from her Akumatized father. She knows something is wrong, but doing things differently goes against everything her parents taught her or exemplified, so it's not a shock she struggles.

Similarly, compare how Bonnie from Kim Possible could actually out-compete Kim for the role of cheer captain. 

Can Chloe beat Marinette in anything?

No, not really, or least the narrative never lets her do so even when she does have the skills for it, such as 8 years of ballet losing to nice vibes.

This is much less interesting than the previous point because it's basically just the writers using Chloe as a speed bump which gets boring after a while.

Then consider how Totally Spies own Mean Girl, Mandy is rarely tied to the actual adventures save maybe in a way other civilians are; leaving altercations with Clover as civilian affairs.

Does this apply to Chloe?

Fuck no XD

Chloe's frequently targeted by AKuma, even when she either shouldn't be singled out, (Ivan, everyone was scared) or for comparatively minor transgressions (Nathanial, his teacher screamed at, insulted & shook him) or outright targeted by the main villain of the show. (One who has known her since she was an infant!) 

Even before she had a Miraculous, Chloe was a frequent target of violent murder attempts. But this is largely treated as neutral, or even as comeuppance for bad behaviour. The issue is, the sheer scale of what she's being targeted with is so completely disportionate to what she did, assuming she even did things wrong, that it comes off as more unfair than anything else, & liable to give trauma. 

Especially as the show has double standards at times.

I think often-times the writers neglected to actually think through their karmic punishments for Chloe.

Take Pixelator, 

Chloe is the one who recognized Jagged, helped her father, and actually did her fucking job, but is the only student not rewarded with a concert ticket despite having done nothing to piss Jagged off.

Or how when her locker was broken into she's largely dismissed and needs to threaten the principal with her father to get a response. One might say this is abusing her power, but A, it's her dads power and B, we see with Lila later that the principle will basically just bow to whoever can make the bigger fuss. This isn't a Chloe issue it's a Damocles issue and I think being upset people broke into her locker isn't exactly unfair.

Similarly, I noted above how Chloe loses to Marinette even when she shouldn't logically do so. 

A bigger example of the narrative short hand delivered is the fact we see other characters do stuff Chloe does and get free rides.

IE, Kagami can dramatically strut into a fencing hall talking the most boastful shit, actually lose more or less legitimately, Akumatize and still be treated with sympathy and become a hero.

Chloe boastfully auditions to be Ladybug for a music video, but actually is the best audition scene, but loses out to positive vibes, gets angry & through her father lashes out, gets punished & no one gives a shit about her side of the story. 

To be clear, I like Kagami, I find this comparison interesting, I just don't think the show realized that it did this or does stuff like this a lot. 

That whole episode also demonstrates what I said at the start, about Chloe embodying the thematic of Akuma, IE, anger or distress, powerful sponsor, lashing out, ETC. 

So the double standard in how she's framed and treated VS Kagami is framed and treated becomes a weakness of the writing and show. 

We also see this with stuff like her & Marinette sabotaging Kagami, but Marinette largely getting portrayed sympathetically for doing so while Chloe isn't. 

This creates the impression the problem isn't Chloe's bad behavior, it's with her mere existence.

IE, she's the audience and writer's punching bag/designated target, so it feels like the writers just kind of don't bother a lot of the time actually making her wrong or thinking through the implications of their story beats with her, or other characters' behaviour. 

This stuff is present in Season 1, much more overt in season 2 and basically caps off season 3 which is where I stopped watching.

Cos like, the villain who's known her since forever has been actively trying to utilize her through the seasons, who explicitly aimed to puther in a state of severe emotional distress, ambushed her in her own home & had her parents in his grasp.

Right after the show's hero blatantly walked back a previous ruling that kept Chloe from being Queen Bee, (& did so for selfish and if one considered HK targeting known heroes, incredibly callous reasons)

But we're meant to hate the 14 year old for responding badly?

I would also argue stuff like this is a large part of what makes Chloe such an ensemble dark horde to the fandom. Not just because one can read into things about her history and character, but because the author's hand is so heavy it actively hurts and hinders its own narrative in order to harm Chloe and so feels unfair.

Some final notes I couldn't place elsewhere:

Akuma don't usually harm their loved one's. Chloe's mother tried to kill her on sight & then kept looking for excuses to do so & finally did. Andre turned the powerful & willful Audrey into a simpering hanger on and wanted to do the same with Chloe, which again, yikes.

When fused together they declared her incapable of loving anyone but herself. A fact blatantly disproven already but even in the episode itself with her demanding their release in exchange for helping Hawk Moth. & then tried to fucking EAT HER.

Her butler, school friend and teacher seemingly love her more than her own parents.

As an aside, Sabrina's explicitly encouraged to work for Chloe by her father as it makes her "Useful" which has loads of implications. But at least one can't blame Chloe for Sabrina's character.

Madame Bustier, when Akumatized uses having "Taken care" of her father as a lure to try and get Chloe to come to her. So again, yikes if one wants to read into it as it means even as an Akuma who was upset by Chloe, Bustier perceives Andre as the threat/problem to her.

Chloe by all accounts seems to live alone in a hotel suite, not even one of the fancier, super suites but like... The walls are 50% glass with no curtains, that lead to publicly exposed areas (as we see interviews with Jagged being conducted in them) and there's almost nothing to identify it as a space she lives in. Hell, the pictures on the wall are often blank and it seems she's lived here alone since she was a toddler.

That would have calamitous impacts on a Child's psyche & development! 

Despite her portrayal, Chloe was shown to be extremely good at being Queen Bee in many respects.

She almost soloed Mayura.

She is the first person shown able to resist Akuma, got civilians out of an Akuma infested train cart & protected Sabrina during the second red Akuma swarm.

She was able to quickly and easily keep up with Ladybug on the roof tops and using a similar weapon & travel style creates a visual parallel between the two which carries implications of them being counterparts. 

But most especially Chloe proved herself a skilled and heroic combatant during Heroes Day; covering for the other heroes without orders, doing so easily & needing to be targeted by multiple villains all with personal ties to her to be brought down, while protecting other heroes.

But that never really gets acknowledged.

So much like with "Nearly being brutally murdered for being kind of a dick" this sense of narrative imbalance engendered sympathy from those who notice.

I also find it fascinating that Chloe is, despite spending her life surrounded by abusers and enablers both, that she, without any real guidance, managed to soften their behaviors on her own.

Yes she buys Sabrina presents in luew of saying sorry, but she also spends time with her and does fun stuff, Andre just buys her off. She wants Adrien at her side and the like, but she doesn't actually try to stop him from befriending people she hates, Gabriel tries to keep him locked up. She doesn't like losing, but compares her relatively mild huffiness or brief theatrics to Audrey's violent response to merely being snubbed.

She's already doing better than all of them despite explicitly being taught or demonstrated, or victimized with all the wrong lessons and is fourteen.

Chloe also obviously has a deeply unhealthy understanding of relationships as seenin in how she recreates her parents awful dynamic with everyone around her. 

IE,

Andre fawns on Audrey, who is domineering, never satisfied and harsh at best. Chloe acts accordingly with Sabrina, while fawning on her mother and Ladybug who are much the same though  for different reasons. She's internalized this deeply unhealthy dynamic and applies it to herself as much as she does to anyone else.

This is just one element of the fact she honestly seems deeply troubled on a social level. I mentioned earlier that Chloe seems to know "Something" is wrong with everyone hating her & is clearly unhappy about it. But also seems unsure how to fix it, or what the source of the problem is.

The fact she often doesn't seem to get social cues, even from people she's treating like a peer, such as Ala or Adrien, gives off the sense that her problems go deeper than just "Being a brat".

This is further emphasized by the fact that so much of her daily persona seen is her doing an impression of her mother. Or otherwise putting on a show to try and get her dad or Kim, or the principle ETC, to do something.

Because when she's "upset" it's all theatrical prancing and squeals of daddy and then it's over.

But when she's actually upset, like panicking over losing Adrien upset, or breaking down cos Ladybug chose another hero with a known identity over her (Said by Kagami in the episode so we can't pretend it's not true). Chloe usually builds up to a brief explosion followed by a collapse, or just collapses outright into a panicked, curled up state. One that in one instance seemed to be intentionally drawing comparisons to an infant, but again give what we know that says less about her & more about Andre.

Basically, Chloe's life is a performance, we rarely see the real her, because she's always trying to play a role she thinks she's meant to, in order to be liked and successful & is confused, hurt and lonely because it's not working the way her family promises or demonstrated it would.

I also think it's interesting how Marinette & Kagami both firmly instruct her to stop bothering about seating arrangements. Like, we see he react to insults and anger with anger back, but those firm instructions seemed to make her actually inclined to listen, or at least intimidate rather than rile her up.

Also on the insults front, I think it's notable with the pariah angle that Chloe did basically become an open target. No, she doesn't do herself any favors, but her efforts to do video assignments, or participate in art class getting naught but degrading insults. Or her simply not participating in Madame Bustier's birthday causing the class to collectively tear into her says a lot.

Also much like with Damocles, Chloe getting away with mean-ness is not a Chloe thing, the other students get away with it too. At most getting a mild "Well that was kind of mean" which gets shrugged off.

So again we are back into one rule for Chloe another rule for everyone else, which engenders sympathy or frustration in many of the audience. 

Also I find her & Adrien's friendship conceptually fascinating. because like... Adrien outright admits that he totally understands sabotaging a train to try and win a parents love. Meaning he both can likely imagine himself doing the same and also does not grasp how fucked up it is to think one has to go to such insane lengths for someone who treats them like trash.

Am I speaking about Audrey or Gabriel?

Trick question, it's both!

As a sort of final cap off, I quite enjoy the fact that Chloe's so aggressively defiant. Yes she can get scared & panic, but like. She spent 95% of her Stoneheart kidnapping oscillating between bored, pissed off and irritated.

One can say it's a fight based trauma response and I agree, but it's also just a fun dynamic to have for a character who'd normally be relegated solely to screaming damsel.

So yeah, I think she's a fascinating character in concept and at times execution. Who subverts, twists and breaks expected tropes tied to her archetype in fascinating ways but who's handling leaves me wanting, I hope this was useful! 

@princess-of-the-corner @generalluxun @maestro04yayyy you might like this post too!

MAJOR EDIT!

I can't believe I went through Chloe's entire persona section & neglected to mention the fact that her efforts to flirt with guys always come off as so awkward and in-genuine compared to her enthusiastic adoration of Ladybug.

[coraniaid]

buffy/faith for the ask game

(Reverse unpopular opinions)

Easily my favorite Buffy ship and one of my favorites in any work of fiction. I think the main reasons it works so well for me are:

The way it resonates so strongly with what's going on in the rest of the show the season Faith arrives. I mean, Buffy comes out to her mother (as a Slayer), which is treated by the show as ... well, as Buffy coming out ("it's because you didn't have a strong father figure, isn't it?" / "have you tried ... not being a Slayer?" / "I've tried to march in the Slayer Pride Parade...") and a handful of episodes later Buffy meets another girl who is also a Slayer and who she starts spending a lot of time with (because they have a connection -- "it's kind of a Slayer thing" -- which she doesn't have with her other, non-Slayer friends). And while they're busy patrolling cemeteries and looking for vampires every night, this other Slayer is keen to (1) talk to Buffy about sex and quiz her on her love life; (2) repeatedly tell her that "all men are beasts" and "losers" who can't be trusted; (3) suggest that Buffy should be more open to having sex with the people she spends her nights hunting vampires with (like ... who, Faith?); and (4) is delighted when Buffy breaks up with her boyfriend (and later furious when she gets back together with her previous ex) and immediately suggests that she could replace him ("You're still going to that dance, right? [...] Why don't we go together?"). If this was deliberately laying the ground work for an explicitly romantic arc, it would feel pretty heavy-handed. The fact that it apparently wasn't (at least not on the part of the showrunner or of most of the writers) almost makes it work better, in some ways.

The way that Faith is, from the very beginning, very deliberately written as a foil for Buffy, a person Buffy might have been if things went just a little differently in her life -- because she goes through things very much like things the audience has already seen Buffy go though (living alone in a small place in a strange town with no friends all season the way Buffy did in Anne, panicking and starting to pack to run away in Faith, Hope & Trick in the same way Buffy was accused of doing just the episode before, killing a person the way Buffy thought she had in Season 2's Ted, the way her fear of Kakistos mirrors Buffy's fear of the Master in When She Was Bad) and because she is so aware of the fact that she's always being compared to Buffy and coming up short, either by other people or herself ("you get the Mom, you get the Watcher ... what do I get?") it's very easy to tie Faith's arc across the show back to Buffy and to her feelings about Buffy. Faith wanting Buffy to accept her becomes Faith wanting this idealized version of herself to forgive her failings. And likewise Buffy recriprocating Faith's feelings and admitting to herself that she is attracted to Faith becomes Buffy accepting that Faith (and the things she represents) really are an integral part of Buffy herself; that Faith isn't entirely wrong when she says that Buffy enjoys being a Slayer and that being a Slayer is something she should be proud of (or, again, being "a Slayer").

Apparently this wasn't the original plan for the character (if there ever was anything like an 'original plan'), but the fact Faith's arc in Season 3 so clearly mirrors Angel's in Season 2 -- and the fact she is so very weird about Angel all season (and that Buffy is equally weird about how attracted to Faith she just keeps insisting Angel must be) just naturally suggests that Faith might have a similiar role to Angel in the narrative beyond just the circumstances of her betrayal of (and later not-quite-being-killed by) Buffy. And Angel is -- for the first three seasons of the show at least -- primarily cast in the role of Buffy's doomed tragic love interest who she has to (metaphorically) kill but will later be reunited with. Which makes Faith ... well, something.

Even if not all the writers were on board, the fact that Eliza Dushku was deliberately playing Faith as attracted to Buffy (and that SMG was playing Buffy as alternately frustrated by and protective of and tempted by Faith) gives their scenes together a chemistry that I don't think most of Buffy's (or Buffy's) canon relationships ever managed. Whether that's the Amends porch scene or Buffy kissing Faith in the hospital in Graduation Day or any and all of their various fights across the show. And those fight scenes are all great, which is another thing I love about the ship: is it really a proper enemies-to-lovers arc if one of the people in it hasn't tried to kill the other one and left them in a coma for months?

Faith's return to Buffy in the last five epsiodes of the show is one of the last season's saving graces, and it helps that by this point the writers definitely seemed to be playing up the ship deliberately ("Willow said you needed me: didn't give it a lot of thought" / "Defensiveness and weird mixed signals ... I've got Faith for that" / "Deep down you've always wanted Buffy to accept you. To love you." / "It feels like it's mine ... I guess that means it's yours"). Even without ever being canon and without wandering what happens post-Chosen, it feels like there's a real narrative arc to their relationship, from their initially rocky start through to "just good friends" to bitter enemies through to Faith seeking (and finding) some measure of redemption and Buffy cautiously letting her back into her life. Faith isn't in the show much (or even mentioned in the show in most episodes), but it feels like she has a genuinely meaningful connection to Buffy that most characters who appeaer in less than a season's worth of episodes can't manage.

The thing that made the ship work for me, rewatching the show after several years back in 2020, is the fact that Faith is -- even at her worst -- incredibly sympathetic precisely because she is such a loser and hates herself so much. She boasts about being a great actor despite the fact we see her awkwardly telling the sort of transparent lies that ... well, normally only Buffy manages (compare "There's this big party ..." in Amends to Buffy trying to tell her old crush Ford that "there was a cat ... and then there was another cat, and they were fighting"), she wants people to think she's cool so badly but only manages to fool Xander and Willow, she tries to act as though she's happy without friends but we only ever see her alone sitting watching old tv shows or lying listlessly on her bed, she insists she doesn't need a Watcher and "has a problem with authority figures" but she is so openly desperate for any sort of parental guidance in her life that she sides with first Mrs Post then the Mayor. She ties Buffy's mom up so she can have someone to listen to how sad she is that Buffy's moved on to a new guy in college and "dumped" her. The scene in the church in Who Are You? where Faith-as-Buffy furiously attacks Buffy-as-Faith while screaming through tears that she's "nothing ... disgusting ... murderous bitch" is, I think, a strong contendor for the best scene the show ever produced.

As Doug Petrie said, the reason Faith works as a character -- and the reason that Buffy/Faith works as a ship -- is that Faith is incredibly unhappy. If Faith was the cool loner she tries to pass herself off as -- and which some of the fandom seems to think she is -- the ship wouldn't be nearly as compelling to me. Faith isn't just the part of Buffy who loves Slaying and pushes back when other people give her orders, and she's not just another verison of Angelus. She's the part of Buffy from Becoming who lost everything and ran away from home, only unlike Buffy she never got to go home again. As Angel asked Buffy in that episode: "no friends, no hope ... take that away, what's left?". Well, Faith is what's left. Of course Buffy would see herself in Faith, right from the beginning. Of course Buffy would want to protect her. As Buffy (Sunnydale Class Protector 1999) tells Angel, Faith is in pain ... she's somebody who "some people ... protective-type people" are naturally drawn to. The show is very consistent about the fact that Buffy's type is friendless losers who look good in leather and can fight alongside her in battle (but not quite as well, so she can protect them and look after them when they're hurt). And what bigger loser in the show is there than Faith?

[ofallthingsnasty]

What one piece characters do you think would be into petplay? Either way, being the pet, or forcing someone to be theirs?

When you sent this, I immediately started typing up a storm about Doffy and Arlong - but to be real, I've written so much about pet play and those two that it feels kind of stale to simply repeat myself... So let me link my thirst masterlist in reference to them and talk about others for once, haha 😅

characters: mihawk, boa, sanji, zoro, kid tw: pet play, mostly consensual but also one entry for noncon petplay, minors dni word count: 1.3k

So let’s start with the ones who enjoy it consensually!

One that comes to mind is Mihawk. Classy. Refined. Loyal. Someone who is all about a 24/7 dynamic - to him, it’s not a kink, it’s a lifestyle. He’s a busy man who enjoys his time off, who loves nothing more than you waiting bare and on your knees whenever he returns from a longer trip, who wants to lead gently and have someone follow eagerly. He doesn’t want to whittle down your resolve, he wants to teach you simply because you desire to; and he wants to be as good to you as you are to him. He is all about rules and rewards and he is one thing that many aren’t: fair. He doesn’t provoke you, doesn’t tease you until you lash out, doesn’t punish due to arbitrary, fictional rules, doesn’t withhold rewards - he is very by-the-book and correct, but also kind. Of course, Mihawk expects a certain level of maturity and tranquility from his partner, but he can forgive transgressions when needed. Whenever you misbehave, lash out, don’t act like you’re supposed to - there is a reason for that, a reason he’ll identify and address. Doesn’t mean you won’t get punished for it - but he is more than understanding. Everyone deserves a bad day, maybe two, and everyone should be heard. All in all, a very kind owner, one that makes play almost cozy. If you want to feel like you’re thoroughly loved, utterly adored and valued - he is the man for you. If you’re obedient.

Boa Hancock is also someone to consider. She isn’t as refined as Mihawk - given that she slips into treating you like a pet without really being aware of the dynamic Frankly, she couldn’t even call herself your owner if she wanted to - no matter the context, she despises that word and any iterations of it. Not with her past, her trauma, her deepest, darkest fears of her and her people falling prey to others ever again. She doesn't own you (never will) - but that doesn’t mean that she won’t treat you like a prized possession an awful lot. It’s just that she’s entirely and unpredictably unconventional about it. There are no rules. There are no punishments. There is only Boa and her never-ending adoration. And yet - you will feel just like a little dog, a cat, maybe even a colorful bird she keeps hemming and hawing over. You’re her partner, best friend, plush toy all in one; you soothe, you calm and you delight her. You are truly unique to her - and she’d be a fool to let you slip through her fingers.  Under her care, you’ll be nothing but horribly spoiled. Anything you could ever ask for, anything you might just even think of wanting - you’ll have it. And then some. Really, you don’t even need to throw temper tantrums, you’ll just have to pout a little and you’ll have whatever you desire in no time. In turn, she wants you to love her, fully and wholly - and to hang off her arm, be by her side, share her bed pretty much all day long. They say absence makes the heart grow fonder - not for Boa, though. Constant company, more like. Really, if you’re okay with being glued to her side and treated like someone’s purse dog (including gaudy costumes, mind you!) then Boa is the way to go. There are definitely worse picks out there. 

Now, on to the ones who enjoy being the pet. Sanji and Zoro are up there, both for different reasons. Sanji - well, he’s Sanji. He’ll do anything, try anything, indulge your every whim simply because it makes you happy. And if you want a little puppy by your feet, want to spoil him rotten, want him to watch you with lovestruck eyes with his chin on your knee? Who exactly is he to say no? There are certainly worse ways to love someone, especially if the trade-off for utter devotion and obedience is ownership. He is yours. Belongs to you only. And vice versa. You only have to ask and you’ll have the most obedient little pet at your beck and call. Want to collar him? He’ll wear it with pride. Want him to sleep in a cage? Oh, he’ll cherish the moments he gets to spend in your bed even more. Want him to ask permission for every little thing he does? Why, nothing that would make him happier than that. I think it would be a way to heal for him, as well. A set of rules to go by, someone who manages the ins and outs of his daily life, unconditional, ever-encompassing love from someone who thinks he’s the apple of their eye? Let him get comfortable in this lifestyle and you’ll see him bloom. He craves love and even more so - security. Give him that and he'll be the best puppy you’ve ever had and hopefully will ever have. Just don’t be cruel or erratic, unjust punishments and mood swings taken out on him are not the way to go. Be firm, be strict - but be fair. Zoro, on the other hand, is someone who doesn’t exactly agree to the dynamic - but he’ll very much act like a dog for you. In all but name, he is your guard dog and you are his handler, the one who points their finger and tells him to attack- People will comment on it all the time, will have him red-faced and grumbly behind you. But he won’t even try to be less obvious about his need to protect you, won’t stop being your shadow for just a  moment. It’s just in his nature, he figures. The urge to protect you, to see you well, to know you save and sound - it nags at him, claws at him, doesn’t let him leave until he knows you are where you are supposed to be: by his side. Happy. Warm. And when you praise him? Scratch his ear just so while he’s napping on your lap? That man is in heaven, not a place he’d rather be. You are simply one of the very few things in life he values. (If you’re feeling extra cheeky, call him a good boy and see where it will get you. Certainly on your back and with him balls-deep inside of you, sputtering about how he’ll show animalistic, how you can have a dog if you want one so bad.)

Now, who likes to force pet play on you? Like I said, the uncrowned kings of that are Doflamingo and Arlong, and you’ll find plenty about that in my respective character tags here and here. But you know who’s another one to make you crawl on the floor, to have you eat slop out of a bowl instead of a proper meal on the table? Kid. Kid will. Not because it’s particularly hot to him - but because it just… happens? Sure, he’ll call you all sorts of animal names, all tailored to your appearance and demeanor - be it cow, bitch, pig, fucking mutt - but it’s not like he looks at you and decides that what you need is a collar. With time, you simply turn into his pet (or worse, his crew’s), with every day you lose a little bit of humanity until you might as well be the bed in his quarters, just another piece of inventory. And the more you do, the more he finds himself enjoying it. It’s like he’s playing it out in reverse: first, you only get to be naked and on all fours to make his little quest for free use easier, then he notices how lovely your ass would look with a tail plug dangling from it. There is neither much care nor thought poured into the whole endeavor, either - one day you’ll simply get a massive collar and a new nickname. If you’re lucky, he won’t hook your nose and call you a little sow. But don’t count on that.

[harukamitsuki]

I need Bakugou stans to realise that it's not that I hate him as a person. It's that I hate him as a character.

A lot of my favourite characters are unrepentant assholes, or assholes who are set to or have already been redeemed. Vegeta from DBZ, Ouma Kokichi from DGR: V3, Dio from JoJo, Laxus from Fairy Tail, Greed from FMA: B, Bill from Gravity Falls, and the list that goes on.

If a character is a terrible person, that's fine by me. But if the author tries and fails to redeem them, yet still acts as though they are suddenly this amazing person, that's when I have an issue with it.

Bakugou was originally written to be a minor antagonist, and that would have been fine, if Horikoshi didn't suddenly go "I drew him crying so imma fix him".

Redemption is such a complex yet simple thing to do. So when you try to do it and fail spectacularly, um, yeah, I do not enjoy that character or your writing.

That is my main issue with Bakugou. I do not think he deserved any redemption, not because he's a bad person, but because there is nothing to convince me that he could change.

He gets one scene where he goes, "boohoo I lost and everyone is stronger than me" then cries, and that's supposed to be enough for him to become a better person? That is nowhere near enough.

There was no moment that made me believe he genuinely regretted and took accountability for the abuse he put Izuku through in middle school.

"He changed!" That's not my issue. I don't care that he's changed. I care that I don't believe in it. If there was a plausible reason as to why he changed, then I would be fine with it. Maybe I'd even enjoy him!

The fact that he's changed doesn't mean shit if it's not believable.

"That was in middle school!" Okay. This one pisses me off the most. That was a year pre-canon? Oh, wow, I guess that's completely fine! It's not as if characters are the way they are based on their past. Oh, Itachi killed the Uchiha clan before canon! Okay, maybe comparing a massacre to bullying is a bit unfair. Still, just because it happened a year ago, it doesn't mean it never happened. It doesn't mean that he's changed considerably.

"Izuku doesn't have any lasting damage and forgave him!" And? Just because your friend forgives their bully, it doesn't mean you have to forgive them. And, again, I do not believe Bakugou's apology was good in anyway. He was trash-talking Izuku, blaming All Might for Izuku's behaviour, and didn't accept any culpability for what he did to him. He didn't tell anyone else what he did to Izuku. Also, if Izuku really didn't have any lasting damage from the bullying, then why did Bakugou's apology make him calm down? If he didn't care about the bullying, then why is he so relieved by the apology? BECAUSE HE WAS AFFECTED.

"Bakugou was being abused!" ... NO HE WASN'T!! Mitsuki is not abusive. Yes, she hit him round the back of his head. After he threatened her. Anyone with Asian parents can tell you that her hit does not hurt. Not only is it somewhat normal in Asian families, but it also doesn't hurt. We have no evidence that she is abusive. Horikoshi knows how to set up abusive families, as seen with the Todorokis. This not that. Either way, even if she was, being abused doesn't mean it's okay to abuse others. You can hurt without hurting others.

"It's the school and teacher's fault!" No, it's not. Part of the fault lies with them enabling him, but Bakugou is already fifteen when the series starts. His mother clearly doesn't agree with his attitude. The school is only partially to blame. Bakugou should have learned by himself what is right and what is not. In fact, he clearly does know considering he doesn't want any of that stuff on his records in case U.A. rejects him.

Again. I don't care if he's a terrible person. I care that he's a terrible character.

So the next time someone says that I'm stuck in Season One, take a moment and think about what you're saying. Bad people in fiction are entertaining. Bad characters are not.

[five-one-two-station]

Everybody should have their own fun, and this isn't trying to harsh anybody's buzz, but I find the impulse to make your own cutesy/badass Replika oc doing funny or heroic or badass things a little odd. Like, that character you designed as a super badass soldier, or well-armed and armored steely eyed cop type... who would they have been built to fight or police exactly? Remember who all those guns and weapons were intended for use on?

I know we're all sick of discourse over who "gets" the game, and I'm by no means scolding anybody for something that harmless, but what's interesting to me is the sense that designing overtly "cool" Replika personas and OCs, complete with the propaganda poster style imagery, feels a little...

I mean, bluntly, it's like the in-world propaganda worked, unironically, on some level, for many people. Kolibris aren't scary, they're whimsical and fun! Storches aren't notably cruel enforcers and chain gang drivers, they're Protektors! Falke isn't a camp commandant, she's a beautiful angel!

The Replikas aren't cool and heroic figures in the reality of the game. They're the carefully crafted organs of a system of control so dreadful it could do what it did to Elster and Ariane. They're victims to that system themselves too, sure - and humanising them is a nuanced and valuable observation of how totalitarian regimes maintain themselves - but that doesn't negate the fact they're also the ones who operate, enforce and perpetuate it, a big part of what the game knows and communicates about such societies. It's notable that the game makes it clear few, if any, of the Replikas actually buy into the Nation as an ideal at all - they enforce it no less pitilessly anyway, incapable or unsafe to imagine anything else.

Their affectations, pasttimes, trinkets, and even affections for each other, all serve to draw a stark contrast to how callously they regard the gestalts they keep suppressed. Their disposability is something they're conscious and fearful of themselves, but fail to recognise as a commonality with the people they brutalise every day, their business as usual. The only grief, tragedy or suffering they acknowledge is their own - they have no regard for any such things in the humans they have... well, dehumanised.

But S-23 Sierpinski was such a hellhole for most of its denizens under "normal" conditions that the nightmare it becomes is arguably an improvement; if only because there are fewer people left now to suffer it. There's a dark poetry here - because the place's banal cruelty is "off camera" to us, it's very naturally less real to us than the grief of the crying Eule. It's only natural, too, to forget how grim the Replikas' purposes are when you don't have to see anyone endure the brunt of it.

And isn't that the very same effect a state like the Nation is seeking in the first place, by disappearing people away to such dark little corners to have it done? In our world, no less than that one.

That works like a kind of propaganda too, not being able to see it - a propaganda of hidden things, as powerful as any poster. A space that's been intentionally left blank.

Kolibris are literal thought police; they intrude on people's very minds, interrogating them to death as a matter of course, with hardly a care either way. The various Protektor classes are functionally concentration camp guards and slave drivers. Falke and Adler are overseeing what amounts to a gulag, one so unimaginably awful Ariane preferred to spend years of her life alone in space to the prospect of being sent there, and inevitably worked to death, far underground.

I think there's a reason we never see one of those posters for LSTRs in game. How could we be asked to forgive our own if we ever did?

[raven5056]

On Maedhros

My take on his character, and me trying to figure him out.

Maedhros is not a good guy. I think that much should be obvious by his deeds and while I think some of that can be attributed to The Oath™, definitly not all of it.

But I think he's not an inherently bad guy either. Tolkien is big on characters "turning" to evil rather than being evil by nature, so the same must be true with Maedhros.

And I don't think Mae can be classified as evil at all. He's an antagonist in much of the story but in the overarching plot he takes the role of a tragic antihero.

In my opinion Maedhros tries to be good. He tries and fails over and over again. He does something great and shows strong morals and the next thing you know he's kinslaying all over the place. He renouces The Oath™ and goes on to sack Doriath and Sirion anyway, and it's not just his brothers making a mess of things. It's a cycle.

To me he tries to adhere to a moral code up until the point where things go significantly downhill, instead of going down with his morals he throws them out of the window.

And later he hates himself for it. And I truly believe he wants this to change, but given a situation his stubborn will (inherited from his father) to achieve his goal is stronger than his ideals (due to his more tempered spirit via his mother) and he fails over and over again.

The fact he willingly gives up the crown of the Noldor to me speaks at least of a certain awareness of his inherent character flaws.

That to me makes him so tragic.

I've always have had a darker take on Maedhros. I generally don't think of him as redeemable. Not because he would not find forgiveness, but because he would never forgive himself. Because he thinks he is broken beyond repair and does not allow himself to heal. He will never leave Mandos because he believes he has no right to set foot in Aman again and walk among those he has harmed.

While Maitimo in his youth is generally a pleasant person he is also generally not okay.

Being the eldest son and heir to the guy the whole species literally peaked in in every possible way imaginable, and who also happens to be the crown prince, there is obviously a lot of pressure.

It doesn't really help that in his early youth —aside from his looks— Mae is utterly regular. He doesn't show any great talents or interest in a craft. (He had to take care of six younger siblings and fulfill his duty in court, he has little time to figure out what he actually enjoys) His grandfather teaches him about diplomacy in court and he is decent at it. Speaking comes easily to him. So he latches on to that. He tries to be the best at something (aside from his dad of course, no one beats Fëanor)

He can't be as good as his father but he can be good at one thing if he tries hard enough. (Whether he enjoys it doesn't matter if you've got Fëanor to live up to)

Slowly he is building up a facade of the perfect Son, Brother and Heir but underneath he grows more and more desperate for (his father's) approval. When his mother leaves he wants to go with her. He was always closer with her. But that means tearing down the entire facade so he stays with his father. Later he will regret that and think that maybe, just maybe had he gone with his mother (some of his brother's might have followed his example) some of the suffering could have been prevented.

When he comes out of Angband he carries a certain resentent towards his brothers.

He knows why they decided not to rescue him but he can't help but be angry after all he has done for them. Because he hates that he hates them, he keeps them at distance. He doesn't want them to know.

I also think he comes out of Angband a very different (very dark) person and the Nelyafinwë Maitimo is dead. His brothers realize that and there is a certain resentment towards this Meadhros Person. Especially through Maglor. I think Maglor absolutely hates who Mae has become but tries to not let it show, he knows it's not Mae's fault. (Mae knows of course, he always knew what Mags was thinking)

After Fingons death Maedhros gives up. (I vary between seeing them as romantic and platonic, so this works either way)

He knows the world is cruel, sure but seeing Fingons fate, the gruesome death of such a kind, brave and unendingly loyal person, his last hope dies. The Union of Maedhros is defeated and the one person who was able to look upon Mae with love, even after everything, is dead. He who deserved the world, died an undeserved horribly gruesome death and Maedhros is still there.

At this point he stops caring. He doesn't pretend to be a good person anymore, he knows he's not. He stops trying.

When Maglor decides to take the twins, they are terribly afraid of Mae. Of Maglor too, but they warm up to him. Of Mae they are still afraid. They sense the darkness in him. But they also sense the pain. One night, Maglor isn't home the kids are scared of a storm. With no other choice they turn to Mae. He does his best to comfort them. After that they warm up to him a bit more. But the uneasyness stays.

As The Oath™ is fulfilled and the Silmaril scorches his remaining hand, Maedhros feels empty. His biggest fear has come true: everything was futile in the end. He gave up everything including himself and any future he could have had for nothing.

There is no point in going on. And the twins are old enough to not need their protection. They are better off on their own. He has burdened their lives long enough.

He will not leave Mandos.

He cannot forgive himself. His Mother will try to see him, he doesn't want her to see what he has become.

Fingon will try to see him, he thinks Fingon hates him for giving up after his death (Fingon does, but he can forgive)

Eventually Elrond will come to the Halls to tell him about Elros' fate and Elronds own family. Elrond knows Maedhros will not return. He just wants to tell him.

[spop-romanticizes-abuse]

their crimes and problems with their redemption arcs under the cut!

catra:

crimes:

War crimes

Abuse of power

Corruption

Reckless endangerment

Psychological abuse

Assault

Terrorism

Attempted regicide

Attempted mass murder

Attempted world domination

Attempted cataclysm

Conspiracy

Mass destruction

Abduction & kidnapping

Unlawful imprisonment

Brainwashing

Theft

Torture

Treason

Usurpation

Coercion

Stalking

Mutilation

Aiding and abetting

Illegal use of weapons

Espionage

Crimes against peace

Crimes against Etheria

Altering reality

how was her redemption arc carried out?

she was only redeemed in the final season and her arc wasn't as drawn out as it should have been.

she never faces any consequences of her actions and is forgiven by her victims almost immediately, either after a vague apology or no apology at all.

she continues torturing and abusing people around her, especially her love interest, adora. her redemption arc doesn't mean anything since she never actually changes.

the diamonds:

crimes:

Multiple planetary conquests

Mass invasion

Mass terraformation

Attempted omnicide

Crimes against the universe

Cruel and unusual punishments

Unlawful executions

Slavery

Oppression

Propaganda

Abuse of power

Mass murder

Terrorism

Ecocide

Genocide

War crimes

Hate crimes

Corruption

Psychological abuse

Brainwashing

Unethical experimentation

Mass forced confinement

Mass destruction

Mass forced transmutations

how was their redemption arc carried out?

same as catra, their redemption was done during the final few episodes of steven universe, and it was way too sudden to be realistic.

they never face any consequences of their actions and still gets to retain their positions as cosmic rulers.

they do, however, seem to put in some effort to change, although it's not clear if this is helpful. steven also does not seem to forgive them.

lilith clawthorne:

crimes:

Malediction

Attempted murder

Child endangerment

Hostage-taking

Kidnapping

Coercion

Malefic

Treason

Cheating

Torture

Abuse

Assault

Aiding and abetting

how was her redemption arc carried out?

she only had to make one sacrifice and that was the extent of her redemption arc.

she is also forgiven too quickly by the people she had hurt.

she does change for the better, and proves to be an ally to the heroes (albeit being an underutilized character).

sasha waybright:

crimes:

Abuse of power

Psychological abuse

Attempted murder

Treason

Terrorism

Harassment

Vandalism

Theft

Usurpation

Animal cruelty

Conspiracy

Kidnapping

Incrimination

Sabotage

Child endangerment

how was her redemption arc carried out?

we only see the beginning of her redemption, the rest of it happens almost entirely off-screen. this was a lazy choice, as we never see an actual “arc”, only the beginning and the end of it.

she is almost immediately forgiven by her friends. there is some lingering suspicion in some episodes, but not enough for everything she had done prior to that season.

however, she also seems to have turned into a better person and doesn't repeat any of her past toxic behaviour.

[oscconfessions]

my distaste for the new ii ep comes from how annoying it made everyone be about taco, the ep was good but yeah i just realized that. anyway.

listen. I think that Taco CAN become a better person. I think that she CAN be able to move on and that she needs to let go of II as a whole. But that doesn't mean that all of her actions are immediately erased/forgiven either. Like the whole point of the episode is to show that Taco KNOWS that she's a terrible person, but like, being aware of it doesn't erase all the harm she did. And Taco KNOWS that herself. She says that she can't let go, and she DOESN'T want to get better either. That's the whole thing. She doesn't want to get better because she thinks she can't get better. And like. Listen

BOTH take aways from the episode are like genuinely horrid. "Taco should make up with Mic and Pickle" nope! She wouldn't! And she can't! She literally can't! She died from the stress the idea of confronting them caused her, and she doesn't want to because she's aware of how much pain she caused. Mic leaving made her realize she was terrible. "Taco is an irredimable monster" ALSO no. Listen. Taco isn't doing anything to become better. Blah blah blah "her arc is not done yet" we know shut up. My point is that Taco is aware that she's a terrible person and her whole song is about her having pity for herself instead of working on being better. MEPAD is the one who's pushing her to do those things, but that's because he's only aware of like, half of the context and doesn't know Mic's and Pickle's sides. Does this mean she's irredemable? Not really. Yeah she did a lot of harm on purpose and recognizing that WON'T kill any of you. And calling out the fucked up shit she did won't kill you either nor does make you a woman hater, everyone calls out shitty stuff characters do all the time, I am impressed that the "evil woman enjoyers" are so adamandant on saying that the evil woman isn't actually fucked up??? However. I don't think Taco is irredemable AND this comes from someone who very openly dislikes her. I GENUINELY want Taco to become a better person and to heal, I want her to let go of II, and of everyone there as a result. People don't seem to understand how her attachment to the past, and to the show, AND to pickle, is literally killing her at the moment. It is literally stopping her from becoming a better person.

Feeling "bad" about your actions doesn't make it okay. You can't keep doing shitty things and then feel bad about yourself like that makes it okay. That's the thing that Taco does. There's like SPECIAL emphasis on mic and pickle being happy and comfortable without taco being around, everyone calls out Taco because she's been stalking them, Taco did the whole questions thing just for. the sake of it. Like she didn't have to do that. Sure "I want you guys to see how bad the show got". Knife LITERALLY called her Ms Projector. But Taco CAN change. She NEEDS to forgive herself and let go for once and for all.

AND before someone compares Taco to Nickel or to any character to ignore the whole fucking point of the ep and of this analysis. They're not the same. They have their similarities but Taco did all of that shit because she wanted the money, and just because she could. Like have we forgotten that she wanted Mic to literally kill Balloon. Come on. A taser would've just killed him. Taco is NOT trying to get better, she says it on her song as well. She knows she did terrible damage and doesn't want to get better because she genuinely THINKS she can't start over at other places. Her unhealthy attachment to II is ruining her. And Nickel? He was like that because Balloon WAS a terrible person on s1, Nickel wanted to protect his alliance, and he KNOWS he was a terrible person now but you know what he did? He started to become a better person AND a better friend once he realized he was in the wrong. AND he's not aware like Taco is! He IS going to therapy and becoming a better person because he WANTS to be a good friend. Taco isn't. Taco kept digging further and further on her own hole despite the fact that she could've just. Start to get better ever since the ep started or moved on with Mepad but she didn't!!!! Because that wouldn't be Taco!!!!

and because i know people will only focus on me shitting on taco via recognizing what the ep pretty much told us. AGAIN. TACO CAN BECOME A BETTER PERSON. BUT SHE NEEDS TO LET GO OF II. AND IT DOESN'T ERASE HER ACTIONS TO DO THAT BUT IT MEANS THAT SHE GENUINELY WANTS TO BECOME BETTER. THE WHOLE POINT OF II IS THAT YOUR ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES BUT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO LET THAT STOP YOU FROM TRYING AGAIN. TACO IS STOPPING HERSELF.

also i honestly don't think people actually like taco as a character i think most of you are like that with her because you think she's hot. "oh max you just hate women" first of all shut up get another argument for whenever someone calls out your shit and also don't you DARE forget the fact that people villainized candle for wanting to take care of herself + that people were HORRID about cabby winning and about her disability. like the treatment you guys give to women is genuinely horrid. DON'T get me started on the way people treat mic or how people infantilize suitcase for being naive/kind. i love fem characters (my main one is literally mic) and the way literally everyone started to treat taco as a shell of her character is genuinely upsetting when the whole point of the ep was to show that "taco is a bad person and she doesn't want to get better". do you guys ACTUALLY care about taco? do you guys see her as a complex individual? do you understand that she's a bad person? do you understand that she doesn't want to get better? do you understand that she NEEDS to let go of ii AND of the past in order to start healing properly? do you understand that you can still enjoy an evil character while also not having to justify their actions, ESPECIALLY when said character recognized that they're fucked up? or do you just feel attracted to her aesthetic? because i think most of you are just attracted to her aesthetic and the fact that she's "hot" to you. taco is a genuinely compelling character and deserves so much better than being treated as a hot woman who's main character trait gets forgotten every single time.

also the ep made me like her more actually but by jove is everyone stupid about her leave her aloneeeee she doesn't need to be excused she doesn't need to be condemned she needs to let go. she needs to accept that meanwhile she can't fix things anymore that doesn't mean she can't work to be a better person.

.

[villainsandvictimsalliance]

It looks like the rewind Theory might be coming true

There are many variations of that theory, but yes.

Honestly, it is badly needed in the story if what Horikoshi is aiming for is an ending where the kids and the villains survive.

Introducing a character that can undone damage is always insurance for the author. You have to be careful to not overuse it to the point it loses its impact. If no one ever dies and everyone keeps on resurrecting, the predictability becomes boring.

The good thing is that bnha doesn't overuse Eri. They don't use it to rewind the damage done to the characters when they lose an extremity, for example. It didn't work on Nighteye. They didn't try to use it on All Might—and if they did, I can't remember when it happened.

The point is that I liked that Horikoshi left Eri's quirk to the end of the manga. That way he could make the characters give their 100% without it meaning sure death. It scares the readers, like it should, it creates tension. Knowing that Eri's quirk might not work is another good decision. Even if she shows up after the big showdown, the public doesn't know who is going to survive.

Now, when I say there are many variations...

I'm against the version of it where the villains are turned into kids. Where is the fun of it, uh?

It erases the complexity of each character and all they fought for. What was the point of fighting so much if you're gonna erase what happened? If there's no consequences, no accountability? Any story should grow from the risks of the actions taken. We want to know there's something to be lost, that's where the adrenaline comes from. That's the entertaining part!

The version that completely heals their wounds is also kinda... bland. I'm a fan of bnha because the story doesn't solve most disabilities with magic.

If a pro-hero loses a leg or an eye, they'd have to learn to fight with the cards they were dealt with. Like I said before, those wounds tell a story of the risks they took. Aizawa cut his leg to survive and see another day with Eri and his students. Mirko lost most of her limbs giving her absolute all!!!!

It's the same for villains. It moves you, the way those villains would sacrifice themselves for their goals. Compress' lost arm tells the story of how they lost Magne. Giran lost his fingers when he refused to sell the League, so their absence is the evidence of his loyalty.

I want irreversibility. I want permanece. I want to see the growth that comes with accepting what we do in our lives and how we have to keep going.

My favorite version is the one that heals enough for the person to survive, but not much more. It is not going to take you to step one, it can't erase all you did and all that was done to you.

A second chance, but you have to make it from where you were left. No shortcuts, no easy way out. Either you commit to it or you're over.

I don't want to see Touya without his burns. That is boring! I don't want squeaky clean Touya, all perfect and smooth skinned and whatever. That is not him. He's the boy who burned in the flames of his passion, right or wrong. He's the boy who is supposed to be dead, but survived because he was a stubborn bastard.

The story can lessen them, of course. At this point Touya is more scrap put together by metal than anything else. He cannot possibly survive like that, so he needs to be healed enough to live. The burns can even lessen with time, fading as Touya heals, but I want the memory to last. I don't care if he forgives Enji, I want him to be forced to look at the burns every day knowing how they're there.

Another example?

Tomura's scars tell a story. You cannot resurrect his family, so don't go erasing the scar in his eye or in his lip. Don't go erasing the evidence of his struggle.

To be fair, Tomura has changed a lot since his first appearance. I remember him with yellow teeth, all skinny to the bone. It shows that no one cared for him. Well, maybe enough to keep him breathing, but there was no delicacy involved. It's funny to think how he got better and better the more time he spent far from AFO. That and the surgery he had to undergo...

Which is a wonderful terrible concept. It's about the cleansing, how AFO was preparing Tomura's body to be his. Body modifications to assert ownership, that's a horror favorite. The idea of being "cured" to the point you can't recognize your own body. You know what I mean.

I'm glad that when rewind was used on Mirio, it cost him something. He lost his quirk for a while and he had to make an effort to go back to who he was. I'd say that the nature of the story helped him bounce and that's a chance we didn't see his struggle a bit more.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter. I hope it'll be a variation I like and not something that's gonna leave me sweating cold every time I dare to remember it.

[spxdyr]

i can't sleep and i keep seeing people angry at gerrards "redemption" so i just wanna talk about redemptions again for funsies.

i genuinely don't think what gerrard did should be considered a redemption because it wasn't. gerrard didn't save the day, bobby and the rest of the 118 saved the day, gerrard was simply a pawn. he was the person who could realistically get close enough to ortiz to get her to let her guard down without raising any alarm bells.

gerrard only agreed because he would get something out of it. and i truly believe it isn't the what that makes a redemption but the why.

i'm gonna use prince zukos redemption arc from atla as my example/comparison genuinely i genuinely believe its one of the strongest redemption arcs in all of television history. i'm also going to use negans from the walking dead because its a very divisive redemption arc that i also believe is one the greatest in tv history because of what it isn't.

first, i want to emphasize that i wholly believe that redemption isn't up to the narrative its up to the audience. the narrative can try to convince you of anything but if the audience doesn't buy it, it doesn't mean shit.

but onto the actual point. gerrard did a good thing, he is not a good person. bad people do good things all the time because two things can be true at once.

the reason zuko has such a strong redemption arc isn't because he did a couple good things. its because we as the audience saw him go through genuine introspection and come to the realization that he wasn't a bad person doing bad things. he was a good person influenced by the people around him to do bad things.

but it also so good because we saw the episodes watching him not only ask for the Gaangs forgiveness but also the audiences. we as the audience were forced to sit down with zuko and decide whether or not we would be able to redeem his actions. and character by character we as the audience found ourselves forgiving him.

it also helped that zuko had a character in the show who was the mirror of his redemption. iroh was also a good person who did bad things but we are immediately forgiving of those bad things because we are constantly showed his goodness through zuko.

gerrard didn't have any of that. in fact the only characters that are still presented in the narrative that might mirror gerrard come in the form of tommy. who also didn't get actual redemption. he was granted forgiveness by passage of time. which as an audience member doesn't change how i view him.

zuko got redemption from both the narrative, the characters, and the audience because he earned it. gerrard didn't get redemption from either, he just did a good thing for personal gain.

on to negans redemption. i want to preface this by saying im a negan defender until the day i die so if you hate negan, disregard this i guess.

negan was offered a redemption by the narrative, the characters, and the audience, and technically he didn't take it.

the thing with the walking dead is that technically there's no heros or villains. there's just people trying to survive, the hero is whoever's story you're following the most and in this case it's rick and friends. there are however, people who are objectively worse than others (ie the guy who tried to sa a 12 year old carl).

negan wasn't a villain he was an antagonist. he was the very thing in the way of rick and friends' main goal, survival.

and he was a good at it. he was so good at it he killed two main characters in one episode, then about 2-3 more over the course of his run as the primary antagonist. then he lost. and spent years in jail for it.

and at no point during that jail time was he offered, nor did he ask for, redemption. because at the end of the day he did what he thought he had to, to survive. and to his people he was a hero.

negans redemption doesn't actually start until years after his arrest. and it happens through judith. a character who wasn't there for negans big performance but was directly effected by it. judith saw negan for what he was, a man trying to survive. and a man who was at the very least good enough that her brother wanted him not be be killed as his dying wish.

negan didn't ask for judiths redemption, she's just a child. but judith, in her childlike optimism, could see the "good" in him.

and objectively, negan was "good." he had his rules that made him better than a lot of other antagonists in the show. rules like no hurting kids, no sa, etc.

when the narrative did finally ask the audience and the characters to see things from negans perspective it wasn't forcing us (or the characters) to forgive him. but inevitably, many characters saw negan for who he was a person who did bad things to survive. and the audience could choose what they wanted to do with that.

in fact, there's a character who, much like much of the audience, refused to forgive negan. maggie was the most affected by negans little performance as it killed her husband in front of her while she was pregnant. and negan never asks her forgiveness, he never expects it. negan doesn't want to be redeemed by anyone let alone maggie. he is only good to maggie as a debt to be repaid. one that he also agrees will likely cost his life.

negan is the perfect example of how redemption isn't just a part of the narrative. a character's redemption doesn't come from the story, or even just the characters in the story. redemption comes from the audience AND the characters agreeing to redeem that character. and the audience and characters don't have to agree on the redemption.

but the thing about gerrard is that he wasn't redeemed by anything. he wasn't redeemed by the narrative because the story was telling us that bobby came up with a plan and gerrard agreed because it suited his interest. he wasn't redeemed by the the characters because it was still pretty clear (at least to me) that the 118 still don't like or forgive gerrard just because he did one good thing, for his own interests. and he wasn't redeemed by the audience because as far as the audience ive interacted with have told me, they still hate that man.

the narrative can't force the audience to redeem someone. that's why the audience is there. the audience is as much a character in the show as the actual characters. especially in the age of social media. so if you hate gerrard still, good you're supposed to.

nothing about gerrard changed so why would we consider one good action a redemption arc? was buck suddenly a villain for filling the lawsuit? no. was eddie suddenly a villain for hurting chris? no. was hen suddenly a villain for cheating on karen? no. was chim suddenly a villain for punching buck? no. then gerrard wasn't suddenly a hero for turning on his body cam and egging on ortiz.

storytelling isn't the place for black and white thinking. there's so much nuance in it. if the show was constantly telling you exactly what to think it would be bad tv. gerrard wasn't redeemed in the same way the buckley parents weren't redeemed, in the same way the diaz parents weren't redeemed, in the same way tommy wasn't redeemed.

thank you for coming to my ted talk.

[mongeese]

I'm not involving myself in the arguments again, but ep 1 Carol snaps that she "always knew Darryl would do something like this one day" and had a larger reaction to the car crashing than (her phrasing) "losing the kid".

So that's why the initial impression of Carol is that she is mean, and Matt's later dad facts + Darryl referencing Carol calling him fat and Darryl hiding his hobbies from her give a certain impression to people.

I do not care about discourse that happened probably years ago because it simply doesn't matter but I AM a defender of fictional women so I'm gonna reply to this. Know that any bitchiness in this post is not directed toward you specifically anon but rather it is directed toward general misogynistic fandom culture (which is rampant).

First point, Carol snapping at Darryl: obviously that's an imperfect reaction, but she's also just had the bombshell dropped on her that her husband crashed their car and lost their son. I think I can forgive her some anger in this moment. There's also probably built up resentment toward Darryl being expressed in this conversation, because she's falling out of love with him and he is the exact opposite of emotionally intelligent and I'm sure communication has been deteriorating between them for a while. Not ideal, but I can't particularly fault her for it. Also, literally in the same conversation, Darryl asks Carol to ask Darnell about the plays he emailed him, while his son is missing, which suggests that he is not always the most responsible! Perhaps giving some credence to her statement!

Reading the transcript, she didn't have a larger reaction to denting the hood of the car. Darryl said it last and she processed it first, but immediately after she began berating him much more intensely about losing their son. Which, again, is cruel but also understandable, given that in her mind there's no explanation for how he could've lost track of Grant other than gross negligence.

Gonna be honest and say I remember nothing about the context of Carol calling Darryl fat. I'd assume it was either a bit of a mean joke that Darryl took very personally bc his self esteem is in the gutter, or her saying he should lose weight. Neither is good, and I won't defend them, but also, compared to all the other shit characters do in the podcast? So tame.

Darryl hides everything from everyone. That's like, the core of his character. It's entirely possible that any hobbies he hides from Carol is simply because he's ashamed of them for catholic guilt/toxic masculinity/general weird repression paranoia reasons, and not because of anything she said or did.

Ultimately this is a pointless exercise because even if all those things WERE as bad as people make them out to be, I'd still be a Carol defender, because all 4 of the dads canonically do things which are way worse. Glen in particular is undeniably a shitty person (at least until 2/3 through the podcast, where I'm at right now), and Ron isn't much better. Yet they're both fan favorites. Why are they given the grace to make mistakes and be mean and thoughtless and flawed and still be liked, but Carol is hated? Could it, mayhaps, have something to do with the fact that they are men? And thus their shitty behavior is fine, because they're oh-so deep, but clearly CAROL doesn't have that depth, because she's just a woman, and she should be more understanding, and motherly, and caring, etc etc.

Like. I'm just fucking begging people in fandom spaces to have an ounce of self awareness and think about why, maybe, you're so ready to hate the female characters who don't act nice all the time, but you love the flawed tragic backstory men? What dominant power structure and social conditioning could be at work here? You are not immune to internalized misogyny (yes, even if you're a woman)

[msfbgraves]

That writing felt on the wall since they had Ali be the mouthpiece to saying Daniel and Johnny were both the same, and laughing about Daniel's 5-on-1 beatdown. They try to make it like oh see, both these men are bad and immature and the same, but reward Johnny for a lack of growth while shining the light on how oooooh Daniel bad and stupid for not growing.

They wrote the whole series to prove that everything Daniel ever learnt and stood for is bad, but to do that, they have make stuff up that nothing in the films ever hinted at; and then they have to make up sympathetic stuff about the villains that nothing in the films ever hinted at, either. Ali, case in point. They made up that Daniel framed Ali for wrecking his car. Daniel is a terrible liar, as shown in films 1 and 3. But this he made up on the spot? Curious. Also, Ali broke up with Johnny before Daniel even arrived. Why should she have any interest in playing referee between them? Logically, the only thing Ali would have been concerned about at school is not who is right and that Daniel has bad sides too, but how to keep her violent ex away from herself and from her boyfriend. If my ex was ganging up on my boyfriend while not leaving me alone, he would not leave a very good impression on me and I certainly wouldn't waste time on getting Daniel to see that he's somehow partly to 'blame'. But they have to put Ali firmly in Johnny's camp for no reason - we've never seen Johnny do anything nice for her - while she spends all the time she's with Daniel badtalking him to his wife. I mean, what? Amanda took that strangely well!

They forgive every bad act within three seconds for their own characters, write in sympathetic acts for Kreese and make Mr. Miyagi into a criminal because they can't actually show their hero doing anything sympathetic. Johnny's one redeeming quality, his relationship with his pupils, particularly Miguel, does not negate that he is unapologetically shown to be stupid, irresponsible, childish, inconsiderate and ungrateful in every other part of his life in Cobra Kai. Well at least he's not a criminal! Mr Miyagi was! Because we say so! So we have something to criticise!

Honestly Daniel himself did criticise Miyagi for being too beholden to the concepts of honor and nonviolence to see what was right in front of him. Those are character flaws. You do not have to retroactively drag a character through the mud so that in comparison another's bad behaviour looks more palatable. There's nothing to suggest that Daniel is a liar, Mr. Miyagi a criminal, Kreese has a soft spot for women and Ali looks back on her time with Johnny fondly. It also doesn't automatically follow the films that Daniel should hero worship everything about Miyagi, because even during the films he had started to question Miyagi (if not as much as Ralph would like). It doesn't follow that if Johnny has arrested development about his sensei Daniel should have it worse because otherwise "it isn't fair!!!"

It's literally a toddler destroying a toy because it bothers them to see others having something nice. And what's worse: Miyagi means something. Daniel means something. Nobody wishes they had someone like Kreese in their life. But those writers want to be Kreese, if they have to piss on that legacy to make themselves feel better about that and they don't care who it hurts.

Honestly, grow up and leave Mr. Miyagi out of your tantrum!

[familyagrestefanblog]

Clarification I definitely should have done ever since season 4 and the Ladynoir conflict started escalating, but hey, let's just get it out:

There are reasons why I'm harping down so badly on Miraculous' Girlboss feminism and defend Adrien as much as I do.

To get the feminist (in-universe) explaination out of the way first:

I would be lying if I said that I like the direction the show has taken Marinette's character and the story in general. But regarding her specifically I simply have to say that most of my problems with her are how she is written as Ladybug, Guardian, and especially leader & partner. Not in her civilian self. Hence why you won't find that alot on my blog, only when it contributes to the overarching double standards problem from s4 I take issue with.

I simply cant deny it, Ladybug is a kind of leader I just came to not be able to respect alot anymore in how she operates most things bc she doesn't really ever look passed how things look & stand for herself, and what SHE needs & wants. Marinette is a very low empathy person in the sense that she struggles putting herself in other people's positions, or remembers considering that at all.

But that's not the reason why I can't respect her as leader. I have ADD, that would be really hypocritical of me.

What leaves me unable to respect her as leader though (& honestly kinda even wanting Alya to take her position) is the fact that the show doesn't see much wrong with Maribug doing that.

They don't properly depict this as flawed leadership she actually NEEDS to grow out of by making up for her shortcomings by, for example, making other people her official co-leaders. Instead the show since s4 (& kinda s3) will proceed to put it's feminist foot down if Maribug isn't actually in the end 100% correct and "totally girlboss justified" in any given case - with CN & authorities specifically - no matter the context. Ergo she's barely ever truly improving her weakpoints in partnership skills for example & continues doing the same mistakes over n over.

like she genuinely would benefit from having Chat Noir as her co-leader too, not just Rena Rouge. But no. The neurodivergend low-empathy girl can't have a high-empathy boy co-leader bc apparently thats misogynistic now, huh ?

Again, I have ADD and I'm also a woman. In fact, I actually have alot in common with Maribug (hence why it hurt so much once s4 took her away from me), so forgive me when I still say: I am NOT going to lower my standards of my believe that neither of those aspects get to be an excuse on everyone else's expense regarding LEADERSHIP (which I do also am in the position of in my life).

And I repeat: LEADERSHIP. Not Marinette herself as a person necessarily & esp not her civilian life.

People always say that her critics wouldn't be so hard on her if she were a man, but I strongly disagree. In my experience, if Marinette were a boy people would actually draw a line nowadays and call out that Mariano is too stuck in his own head to be a good leader (& partner). And maybe even demand that he shouldn't be in that position anymore either at all or until he's in a better head space.

Bc with male characters people are actually drawing lines now in important factors when it comes to power & the accountability coming with it, bc in the end being in change means it ain't about you

Hence why e. g. Steve Rogers (Captain America) was then a fucking fugitive from the law when shit got real in the MCU. They had to do that bc of his leadership morality not being able to exist well within a corrupted & complex law system under fire and attack. My man's an amazing battle leader, but the MCU did VERY well leaving taking care of all kinds of social & political matters to Tony Stark. This kind of nuance ain't Steve's strength. Marinette & Steve are actually a EXTREMELY similar type of leader and it's interesting that I don't exactly vibe with him too much either in that regard, but like him as person the way I did Marinette. So for me it's definitely an issue with their type of leadership.

But the mainstream female leader characters are often still "too female" to get held to the same regular standards bc telling a female leader character in a complicated and not entirely beneficial situation & position 'yeah, it's sucks but you're not the center of the universe'' is now more often than not still "too mean/ sexist"

again, Steve was made an outlaw for a reason and you can bet if he had been a Stephanie people would have made all her struggles about sexism & called the 'outlaw leader' route after Civil War misogyny, merely bc "society doesnt respect women". This is whats happening with Maribug & it clashes with her leadership style.

Hence why there AREN'T ALOT of mainstream female leader characters. And if we get some, most of them are narratively defined by how powerful & in control they are for THEIR OWN BENEFIT and it being depicted as 100% right & just in general (like with Marinette) which goes against what a normal leader should be, so alot of people don't like them (ignoring the actual sexist people for a sec)

The first Wonder Woman movie for example was so well-received for a reason. They did it RIGHT (& may I please also recommend Wakanda Forever? Fuck, that movie was GOOD)

--

But yes, it's notably how Maribug treats Chat, who is supposed to be her partner and friend, that I take alot of issues with.

And yes, I would say the same if LB were male and CN female. Ladynoir is so rooted in toxic femininity that this "partnership" (or just the entire LS) the way it is could NOT exist today in gender bend. S4 and the s5 finale in particular are unthinkable in gender bend and they sold it as "justified female empowerment" & "unparalleled loving treatment" from Ladybug's side Chat Noir needed to learn to be GRATEFUL for.

All while, and I will never stop stressing this: the show has never stopped writing Marinette to treat Chat Noir as if he basically just spawns into existence once he puts on the mask. He's HALF a human being. Even once she falls in love with him in s5.

This is the fundamental and deep seeded problem of where my issues come from here. It never stands in question if Adrien views Marinette and Ladybug as full human beings, but the other way around that very much is the case. In whatever way it's depicted. Yes this is a line I draw, especially because of the whole Sentihuman thing.

I personally am alot more like Adrien regarding Friendship and partnership (or what his character initially started out). They are heavy & meaningful topics for me. So seeing Marinette being utilized to girlboss all that into the ground with Chat Noir, esp in s4, while she apparently barely ever even noticed anything wrong with how she treats him in the first place as she literally replaced him with Alya/ Rena in everything but name

cause buring him under a wall of secrets & lies meant she can still 100% benefit from his eternal devotion by letting him believe she's too alone to be a partner anymore AT ALL. (Kuro Neko onwards and then NEVER stopped letting him think she's just as alone as he is. NEVER. She's still doing it in s5 while leaving him 100% isolated which was then his demise in the s5 finale.)

and gives Alya the deluxe partnership entirely on his expense, while barely ever sparing him even the most basic thought in anything; & by "Risk" then literally having them switch status. Rena is her actual partner she fully treats that way and he's merely her favorite temp hero with no rights, which Rena was previously.

And the only reason why Chat was treated with something resembling to fairness or dignity again in season 5 (& finally wasn't a rag doll for her every little mood anymore...) was because Maribug plainly had no other choice and had her team & position of power taken away by force while Alya renounced for her own safety. And yet she's still treating him as half a human being even by the end of S5. AFTER her character development. He's Chat Noir and that's where his existence ends in her leadership & friendship. CN and Alya in s5 are literally 2 halves of ONE PARTNER.

All that was painful to watch to say the least. Bc it's imo honestly a disgrace to friendship and partnership. I can't put into words how ashamed I would be of myself if I treated someone the way Marinette treats Chat Noir (again, HALF A HUMAN BEING).

Much less a friend I claim to love dearly and don't want to loose (another thing the MCU did better regarding Steve's fall-out with Tony over Bucky... I should really make that comparison post why Steve works for me & Marinette doesnt)

Just the mere fact that Marinette in "Elation" even told Chat "It doesn't matter who's underneath your mask" is honestly outrageous.

Because thats simply what it is for me. If s4 & 5 Marinette were portrayed from a similar morality angle to Emonette in the Paris special I would have much less issues with her. Cause thats ironically an angle female characters barely get & is mostly used to redeem the broken bad boys with a hidden heart of gold™.

Double irony: s1-s3 actually DID put civilian Marinette often into that angle, hence why I really liked her, but then s4 suddenly said "well, her methods & actions really dont matter. She's wrong, but actually not really; ergo she should get rewarded in the end. Always. But with a few exceptions. Here n there she loses to claim otherwise. But actually the world just needs to learn how right & amazing she is."

She makes countless mistakes but often either doesn't really learn from them anymore or they just don't "count" bc that's 'what makes her quirky & loveable', so having any issues with her now means you hate women. And she's a very flawed leader but actually never did anything wrong. Ever. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I will be VERY blunt now: The moment you put a female character into the leader role the FEMALE aspect is supposed to be of secondary importance. And a leader, by the nature of the position, ALWAYS has to be questioned morally wise in my opinion bc of the fatal blindspots that will automatically occur in every leadership.

And it happened here too: Chat Noir's treatment. But they demanded that her being the (female) leader means she's OWED to treat him badly & gets to keep him as blindspot on HIS expense bc she doesn't like thinking about him existing as civilian person.

A leader is ALWAYS somebody who is NOT going to sit well with everybody regarding their approach. That's a normal instinct, and in fact it would be highly dangerous if that wouldnt happen at all. So if I, or other people, don't respect her as one that simply means she has an opposition the way every leader has & is being held to normal standards a leader should be held to, regardless of gender.

Sorry if you think thats sexist, but in my opinion that's a YOU problem. I personally respect female leaders too much to not acknowledge them as anything else but the potential threats they are. The same way I do with male leaders.

You're leader first, woman second. If you can't handle that get out of the leadership position (yes, oc that also applies the other way around). Feminism was about making sure that women cant be excluded from e. g. position of power just bc we're female. The goal wasn't to have yet another group of people stomp their foots, now claiming that they are OWED power once they wanna have it to feel powerful. But that's what Marinette was used to teach an entire generation of children, especially girls.

The last thing you will EVER get me to do is accept that I should be holding women - specifically for equality, female empowerment and leadership - to LOWER (moral) standards as I would the men in her position.

Buddy, I am NOT gonna fucking do that. Just the thought is pissing me tf off, and has ever since s4, cause it directly plays into the misogynistic thinking of:

"Women can't be given power, status or even too much focus as human beings because they're too irrational and immature to be able to then lay proper priorities & take rightful accountability for their shit like a man in power could; and not just scream and cry while playing the oppressed victim card the moment things don't work out & they aren't being given the special female treatment to let them mostly off the hook consequences wise.

Leading to everyone around them, especially the MEN, having to step up, do the work & basically babysit the women like children - while still having to give her the credit as person in charge - turning the women more or less into toddlers wearing a queen's crown"

Which, by all means, Adrichat in every dynamic of the love square by season 5, Gabriel at the end of "Recreation" and even Luka & Félix (& "thankfully" Alya too since s4) had to do for Maribug in alot of ways.

Pick up all of her slack in several major areas & catering to her while simultaneously having to still give most of the credit to HER or else they would be "mean to the female lead" (it's also telling that Alya is treated the best here, & goodness dont get me started on Su-Han...).

And with that out of the way, a few more meta reasons:

1) I'm NOT watching a damn documentary. Marinette is NOT a 14 year old, she doesnt exist & isnt based on a real person or story. She's a fictional main character and narrative tool, so forgive me for approaching this differently than a real life case.

and 2) in everything I watch I automatically look out for the narrative's blind spots and victims of the writings' favorites. I take it this seriously because this is career related for me.

Hence why I have barely ever liked a main character and ironically Marinette/ Ladybug was once one of the few exceptions (alongside Korra from Legend of Korra and Blitz from Helluva Boss)

Look, when I for example watch Helluva Boss or a Yugioh show I will automatically pay extra attention to how the female characters are being treated bc they are obviously treated worse by the writing and much more neglected and scapegoated than the male characters.

Meanwhile when I watch Miraculous and She-Ra, I do the opposite and pay attention to how the male characters are treated bc now they have the gender-biase against them.

And when I for example watch Avatar the last Airbender or Legend of Korra [and She-Ra, that show is great], then I actually get to be mostly fucking happy for once in my life jfc

I'm not going to elaborate too much more on this because I already named by my main point in the beginning: Chat Noir's - not even Adrien's, I mean CHAT NOIR - sometimes honestly awful treatment being the biggest moral and narrative blind spot of the entire show, and honestly where most of Maribug's problems then are also rooted in. Hence why I started focusing so much on Chat Noir since season 4. I look at the overall narrative and circumstances and look for the blind spots that needs to be solved to get to the core of the problem of this whole mess, to get effective results.

And that was and even by the end remained the fact that Adrichat is treated so badly, scapegoated in every possible way in the name of "feminism" and kicked out of the story where HE is at the core of most everything going on, just so the show can force Maribug into everything, make things about her that have no business being about her

Just so she can then be made to constandly turn around and scream, cry and stress about problems - and go about them in the least effective way - that wouldnt be there in the first place if she wasnt the main character of a story that isnt hers.

Mate, I dont know what to tell you here, but the fact that we are following Marinette Dupain-Cheng ,who has nothing to do with anything besides being the cool action girl, is and will always remain of the of core problems of this show. I WISHED that wasnt the case. But for the love of everything, Kagami would have made so much more sense as the female lead, but no.

Anyway, I will leave it at that now cause I already elaborate much further than I initially wanted to, I just wanted to finally have all this stated.

This Blog is not a full representation of how I lay priorities in (feminist) media in general, my view adjusts to the piece of media I'm watching.

And unfortunately, ever since season 4 Miraculous turned into a full blown extreme case and has only gotten better somewhat recently. So I will continue doing what I always do: focus on the fucking VICTIM whose bad treatment pulls down the whole show's quality, and here that's plain obviously Adrien Agreste/ Chat Noir.

And with all due respect: Die mad about it.

[giftedpoison]

Rewatching The Bear before the new season.

And the christmas episode is getting to me hella.

I want to give Mikey the biggest fucking hug in the world. The conversation between him and Carmy and Carmy gives him a gift that's a concept of their restaurant "The Bear" and I'm just realizing he didn't want to run a restaurant with his little brother not because he had anything against Carmy but because he didn't want his little brother to realize that he'd been running his restaurant completely illegally and how deep in addiction he was and how much that he was just not good enough for his little brother and he didn't want to crush that illusion because it would kill him.

And then at the table when he throws the fork at Lee. Multiple times. And Lee is going on and on about how much of a loser Mikey is and how Unc should have never given him the money or continued giving him money.

And I can't stop thinking about how it parallels Richie's current state in present day The Bear prior to this ep. (I'm still mad Syd never apologized to him for her part in their dispute where she was telling him how much of a loser he is and how no one cares about him. Like yes Syd needed an apology too but that doesn't mean Riche didn't deserve one either- unless that happens later. Although the fact she didn't really speaks to how it was considered acceptable things to say to him because a lot of people at the restaurant continously treat him like he is worthless and doesn't add anything. Which is because at this point he kind of doesn't but no one sees anything in him either. Because he isn't a cook and he's resistant to change because he is so scared he is going to be left behind.)

And I just think about how Richie's life could have ended up like Mikey's with the end, if it wasn't for the fact he eventually found the thing tm that he could do and well and realized he wasn't as worthless as everyone around him thought and as he thought of himself.

Anyway Richie's my favorite character solely because I adore his arc. And also because when I watched him start learning at that fancy restaurant (i only have vague memories forgive me) I realized I want to do what he's doing although not in a restaurant

It's the always feeling like your on the outskirts of something great but you can't or don't actually want to be like the superstars. The great cooks the great pastry chefs the project manager. You can't do any of that and you feel so fucking worthless because the high of it all is something that means something to you. And then you finally find your place, and you're just like oh shit I'm doing this. I didn't even know this was a possibility I thought I would be folding sandwiches forever. No one told me this was a way to touch the world i love so much. And have a positive impact on the world in a way that makes me feel fulfilled and important at the end of the day and not a fuck up wasting away.